I'm inclined to disagree. The essay finds a need to emphasize the biggest baddie and call that evil, but much evil is done through the "banality of evil", or through those who are misguided and think they're on the side of the good. Being broken can lead to evil, but sometimes the utmost ordinariness or in fact a rage at the broken can lead to evil.

Batman and The Joker: both broken, and then the interest becomes in dramatizing WHY only The Joker is evil

Marvel's Ultron is evil, and his evil stems from his rage at the evil inherent in humanity, that humans are broken, and he thinks he is superior to that. Vision, in contrast, is forgiving of brokenness.

Thanos's first words (aside from earlier cameos) are: "I know what it's like to lose." Complexity makes a better villain. Too extreme villainy doesn't have as much to teach us. There's nothing for us to identify with and say: well, if I mis-step, I could end up like that. Marvel's tagline for Spiderman is "with great power comes great responsibility", and canonically Spiderman learned that lesson from the death of his Uncle Ben when he sat on the sidelines. Marvel characters can move back and forth between hero and villain, like Loki and Wanda.

I don't think freedom and libertarianism have ever been central comic book concerns. Superman seems somewhat boring, but that's because he's a fantasy fulfillment, what if Good always had the upper hand, what if we never had to ask if God had abandoned us (Kal El means "voice of God".)

Total good and total bad are not guides for us in our lives here on Earth, they are escapist fantasy, like libertarianism.